This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Festivals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FestivalsWikipedia:WikiProject FestivalsTemplate:WikiProject FestivalsFestivals
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Cite 31 (31] Huckabee, Tyler (9 December 2021). "No, Christmas Trees Don't Have 'Pagan' Roots". RELEVANT. Retrieved 5 March 2023. )
in reference to quote “ although there are no historical records of that”
should be removed because this is a citation from an OPINION ARTICLE by a young freelance writer who lacks credibility because he does not cite any sources at all.
History should not be able to be tampered with and rewritten according to opinion!! Please remove this quote and citation. DigbyDarling (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@E-960: I have removed the drawing but instead of returning the old photo of the ringed version, I have added one that depicts the most common type. While drawings can are are used in Wikipedia, the drawing you posted is of poor quality and arguably does not do a good job depicting the subject. However, photos of Podłaźniczka posted in Wikipedia Commons are also of poor quality. I have taken one that is marginal and color corrected, cropped, sharpened it to make it at least somewhat better. I strongly suggest if none of the photos are of good enough quality for you that you either take and submit better photos or seek out better photos that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Myotus (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is dark and blurry but there still isn't much better. While it will do for now, we still should be on the look out for better images. Similar to the main Christmas tree image for the article the should be in "product shot" style. I have added the Template:Photo requested to the Podłaźniczka Talk page. Hopefully a good image will eventually be taken/found.
BTW, I love the uncropped photo of the image that is used. It should be used on the main Podłaźniczka page, showing it in context with a holiday activity. Myotus (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Christmas trees in Denmark had become widespread by the 1840s, so Andersen would have known about them when he wrote his story. 1860 is when he was told the about the history of the first Christmas tree in Denmark. Indyguy (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, you said, 'rv removal of sourced information by User:Jcvamp; gain consensus on talk page for contentious edits'. I don't see what was contentious about my edits. There were things supported only by a blogpost from a Christian magazine of sorts, that were clearly biased, and there were places where it was clear that an effort was being made to cast doubt on any pre-Christian traditions, such as the addition of, 'though this claim has been disputed', despite the sources cited not including such language. So I removed the biased language. The other thing I did was organise the section so that it was more chronological, like other history sections.
I'm really sorry if the fact that there are plausible links to pre-Christian traditions for certain Christmas traditions bothers you, but the fact that it bothers you is irrelevant. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a place to push your propaganda. Perhaps you should gain consider gaining consensus on the talk page before you make contentious reversions. Jcvamp (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam I agree with Jcvamp's edits. They have improved the article and have removed biased and poorly sourced content. They should be left. However, I think it is problematic that so many significant changes to the content were made close to the actual holiday, as that seems to be a favorite time for vandals to attack the page and not the best time to get into an edit war. However, it is the time of year folks will review the page. Myotus (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Ohnoitsjamie has reverted the content. Jcvamp I think you should hold off on trying to add it back in for a bit. Folks should give their reasons for and against the changes here in the talk section, I would especially like to hear from Anupam. Myotus (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Ohnoitsjamie and User:Myotus. The issue with User:Jcvamp's edits is that they have ordered the sections so that they present putative postulations behind the origin of the Christmas tree before its actual, traceable origins to the Protestants of Central Europe. Additionally, User:Jcvamp wishes to present the debated hypotheses on pre-Christian antecedents, without any rebuttal. User:Jcvamp's edits removed such a source, along with accompanying information, that disputes the claim of Christmas trees having ancient origins. My reason for reverting his/her edits is because they appeared to censor opposing views. I am thankful that User:Ohnoitsjamie reverted User:Jcvamp and will try to find alternate sources to further buttress the information. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk21:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to apologise for my tone in my original message. I felt irritated, and I should have waited until I was calmer to post a message.
Regarding my edits, I was careful to keep as much of the original material as possible. The one source that was cited to justify pre-Christians traditions being debated was a Christian blog. Blogs aren't considered to be good sources, and this particular blog was biased. The reason I reorganised things wasn't to create the impression that the pre-Christian traditions are the 'true' origin of modern Christmas traditions, but rather to put things into chronological order because that's how history sections tend to be organised. There were no claims that the pre-Christian traditions were the definitive source of modern traditions, but it is fair to include them as they are plausible antecedents supported by reliable sources.
It’s important to remember that our role as editors is not to determine what is or isn’t accurate but to accurately reflect what experts on the topic have said. This ensures that the article remains neutral and informative. Jcvamp (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, my edit removed, 'though this claim has been disputed.' with a reference to Huckabee after 'Other sources have offered a connection between the symbolism of the first documented Christmas trees in Germany around 1600 and the trees of pre-Christian traditions', and 'although there are no historical records of that.' after 'It is commonly believed that ancient Romans used to decorate their houses with evergreen trees to celebrate Saturnalia', also with a reference to the article by Huckabee. I believe there was one citation with a link marked as dead I removed too. The rest was reorganising and a slight rewording. Jcvamp (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The historian Spencer McDaniel (MA in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies from Brandeis University) corroborates the claim:
Now, everyone always seems to say that, in late December, the ancient Romans would cut down evergreen trees and bring them into their homes for their holiday of Saturnalia. You will find this notion in all the articles on the internet from both mainstream and non-mainstream news sources. It seems to be one thing almost everyone agrees upon. Is it true? Nope. Not in the slightest. I am not sure where this idea comes from, but there are no references whatsoever to any traditions involving decorating evergreen trees in any of the copious surviving ancient writings about the holiday of Saturnalia. Yet people keep repeating this line about the Romans decorating evergreens. The media repeats it every year, presumably because they cannot be bothered to read through Macrobius’s Saturnalia (which does not mention evergreen trees being used for decoration during the holiday) or any other Roman writings. They could even just, you know, just ask a classicist, but, as far as I can tell, they never have.
I see no issue with using this source as long as it is attributed to this historian. This meets our policy on WP:NPOV, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Kind regards, AnupamTalk22:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at the McDaniel and Huckabee references and I agree with Jcvamp that those two sources do not meet WP:RS criteria here. Perhaps in the future McDaniel will be a recognized expert in the field, but at this time it's a grad student blog hosted on Wordpress. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current text is a bit misleading: Modern Christmas trees originated in Central Europe and the Baltic states, particularly Estonia, Germany and Livonia (now Latvia) during the Renaissance in early modern Europe
First, the medieval Livonia included both Estonia and Latvia. Second, the "Baltic states" is a modern geopolitical grouping that includes Lithuania. The cultural region that the sentence intends to refer to is the "Baltic provinces" or later "Baltic governorates" that would exclude Lithuania.
Propose to amend as follows: Modern Christmas trees originated in Central Europe (particularly Germany) and Livonia (now Estonia and Latvia) during the Renaissance in early modern Europe.87.119.178.184 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: He actually does cite his source. The information the journalist wrote about is from Macrobius’ Saturnalia and he credits it as such. You may want to review WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research for further details about why this source is allowed. Change not done. Thickynugnug (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
